Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior

Hi,

Currently there is no error in this case, so additional thrown error would
require a new test.
Besides, throwing an error here does not make sense - it is just a check
for a vacuum
permission, I think the right way is to just skip a relation that is not
suitable for vacuum.
Any thoughts or objections?

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 7:46 PM Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:

> Nikita Malakhov писал 2023-01-16 17:26:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Here's the patch that fixes this case, please check it out.
> > The patch adds vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() check before adding
> > partition relation to the vacuum list, and if permission is denied the
> > relation
> > is not added, so it is not passed to vacuum_rel() and there are no try
> > to
> > acquire the lock.
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> Hi.
>
> The patch seems to solve the issue.
> Two minor questions I have:
> 1) should we error out if HeapTupleIsValid(part_tuple) is false?
> 2) comment "Check partition relations for vacuum permit" seems to be
> broken in some way.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alexander Pyhalov,
> Postgres Professional
>

--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
https://postgrespro.ru/